BY BUKOLA SARAKI[i]

Introduction

The plan to make Nigeria one of the leading 20 economies of the world by the year 2020 is an enormous challenge that requires Nigeria to operate not only within the framework of national development, but also in the context of a globalised economy. In seeking to achieve this goal, the 7-point agenda of President Umar Yar’adua must connect to the mainstream of the global economy and position Nigeria to confront the challenges as well as take advantage of emerging opportunities.

In this paper, I intend to argue that the most important challenge facing Nigeria’s policy actors is how to make choices that deliberately seek to develop our competitive advantage and develop world-class physical and human infrastructure, which will serve as a national portfolio of assets that promote and attract private investments. I will argue that the effort to rebrand Nigeria is principally both economic and social.  To change the way other people see us, we must first change the way we see ourselves and; we must change the stories we tell the world about our country. It is only when we are positive about our citizenship that we can strive and thrive together to carve a national ‘niche area’ in the vast global economy. I will start with a cursory review of emerging developments in the global arena and their implications for Nigeria’s quest to achieve economic development and be viewed positively by the rest of the world. I will then examine some key policy options that we must consider now and in the near future; and then conclude with some general recommendations.

“The New World”

In 2008, the editor of Newsweek International, Fareed Zakaria wrote a book titled “The Post-American World.” This book is not about the decline of the United States of America, but about what he called “the rise of the rest;” the rapid economic growth that has been witnessed in different parts of the world in the last few decades. He noted that while this growth has been most visible in Asia, China especially, it is not limited to it. Between 2006 and 2007, he submitted, 124 countries grew at the rate of 4 percent or more, and this includes 30 countries in Africa. The 25 companies that are likely to be the world’s next great multinationals, he reported, are outside the United States or any of the traditional suspects in Europe or Japan. They include four companies each from Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan; three from India; two from China; and one each from Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, and South Africa.

He wrote:

“Look around. The tallest building in the world is now in Taipei, and it will soon be overtaken by the one being built in Dubai. The world’s richest man is Mexican, and its largest publicly traded corporation is Chinese. The World’s biggest plane is built in Russia and Ukraine, its leading refinery is under construction in India, and its largest factories are all in China. By many measures, London is becoming the leading financial centre, and the United Arab Emirates [Abu Dhabi] is home to the most richly endowed investment fund. ...The world’s largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. Its number one casino is not in Las Vegas but in Macao. The biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Even shopping...has gone global. Of the top ten malls in the world, only one is in the United States; the world’s biggest is in Beijing. Such lists are arbitrary, but it is striking that only ten years ago, America was at the top in many, if not most, of these categories.”

Zakaria attributes this astonishing story of prosperity around the world to the fact that most countries are now practising what he called “sensible economics” characterised by monetary and fiscal policies. From Turkey to Brazil, to Jordan and India, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, UAE and China; and South Africa, new actors are redesigning the world economic map, leaving giant footprints everywhere. The share of people living on $1 a day, put at 40% in 1981 has gone down to 18% in 2004 and projected to drop to 12 percent by 2015. And if this happens, the world would have surpassed its own target of halving the world poverty by that year. As at last year, the global economy has hit the $54 trillion mark and global trade witnessed a stunning 133% growth. All in the last 15 years!

Perhaps, the most remarkable of this story however, is the fact that the growth of the ‘new comers’, especially the countries termed by the team of Goldman Sachs economists as the BRIC States - Brazil, Russia, India, and China – is being powered by their own markets rather than exports to the West.

“The Post-American World” was published in 2008. Even in normal times, one major tragic event, a Tsunami or a bad hurricane for example, can undermine a country’s economic gains of many years. And these are not normal times. Therefore, we cannot say exactly how much of this amazing story of growth and progress around the world would still be valid when the raging storm of the current global economic recession settles. But no matter how it turns out, the message here is clear: the challenge of economic growth and poverty are not as intractable as traditional postulations of many years ago would want us to believe and it does not take forever as well. If we are still in doubt, let us ask how long it took us to revolutionise the telecommunications industry and achieve the monumental gains this alone has brought into the homes and streets of Nigeria.

The next logical question therefore is where does Nigeria stands in the context of all this. We may never agree on why these other countries have made the kind of progress that scholars like Zakaria have so brilliantly celebrated. We may not even be able to fully account for them. We may even argue that Nigeria has made its own progress too in the last 15 years, even if these do not grab the world headlines. But at a more critical level, we must be able to examine where we are in the overall context of the global economic order.

Nigeria and the Rest

Reverend Father Mathew Hassan Kukah once memorably argued that for us to speak of moving Nigeria forward, we must start by asking where Nigeria is at the moment; because if we are sitting at the edge of a precipice, moving forward would mean plunging headlong into the abyss. Therefore, progress could also mean taking some steps backward or moving sideways.

In the 2008 World Bank’s ranking of economies by GDP, Nigeria is number 40. The country occupying the 20^th position is Indonesia. By current ranking therefore, it means Nigeria wants to take the place of Indonesia, and be ahead of countries like Poland, Switzerland, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, South Africa, Thailand, Malaysia, Sweden, Denmark, UAE and a couple of others within the next 11 years.

If we use a more robust ranking index, the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI), a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living, ‘well being’ among countries Nigeria is currently ranked as a low income country on number 154. And for the Africa region, it is neither among the 10 highest nor among the 10 lowest.

We know that international development statistics, especially that which seeks to rank countries based on a number of indices do sometimes inadequately account for some other realities within specific national contexts, but what is clear to us is that where we are today is not where we desire to be and we want to achieve rapid progress within a very short time.

How did the developed countries achieve their prosperity? One version of explanation, which also argues that prosperity can spread to all corners of the world, is that rich countries are rich because they have adopted improved technologies in power generation, medicine, transport, construction and so on and used these to drive investments and growth. And, “the very science and technology that underpin prosperity in the rich world are potentially available to the rest of the world as well.” Therefore, if other countries are able to adopt the benefits of improved technology and scientific advancement as well, they will also be rich.

Maybe the key to prosperity is a little more complex than that. But the argument here is that unlike barrels of oil, or diamond and gold, the benefits of technology is available to everyone, whether you talk of the internet, or broad-bands or human genome. And this is why Thomas Friedman argued that the world has gone “flat”, giving countries everywhere the opportunities to start moving up the ladder of economic growth and prosperity. However, taking advantage of technological innovations and advancement to achieve economic growth and accelerated development such as Nigeria seeks is not automatic. Certain conditions must be met.

There has to be investments in what is called the ‘physical capital’, the machines, as well as the human capital, which is the drive towards the acquisition of necessary skills. Secondly, the export markets have to be developed, because it is the earnings from exports that will procure the technologies from where it was originally developed.  Thirdly, there has to be targeted investments by government to develop the physical infrastructure. Cars imported would need roads; machines would need electricity; and medicines would need hospitals. While the private sector can import technologies, government has to provide efficient and reliable infrastructure on which these would run. And lastly, there must be core competencies within the country that can adopt and adapt international technologies to local conditions and needs.

Nigeria and the Knowledge Economy

A knowledge economy has been defined as “one in which knowledge and ideas are the main basis for promoting economic and social development.” It is an economy where knowledge is acquired, created, disseminated and used effectively to enhance economic development. Therefore, for any country to thrive in the knowledge economy it needs a well trained workforce that is able to create and apply new technologies. This is what Jebb Bush, the former Governor of Florida, referred to as the “human infrastructure.” This factor is no doubt the most fundamental for economic development in the 21^st century. Countries would achieve growth because they have invested in knowledge and others would stagnate because they have failed to do so. It is the knowledge divide that would make the difference. 

One of the main reasons Fareed Zakaria noted that his book, ‘The Post-American World’ is not so much about the decline of America, but more about the rise of the rest, is that in the area that matters most, the quality of human capital, America is still by far the world leader and this is likely to remain so for a long time to come. A 2008 ranking shows that American universities make up 8 of the 10 top universities in the world, and 37 of the top 50. It is important to note that no Nigerian university was ranked among the first 6000 in the world! 

A 2003 World Bank report noted as follows:

“Many developing countries have neither articulated a development strategy linking knowledge to economic growth nor built up their capacity to do so. Nigeria is one of these. Although it is Africa’s largest country with 20 percent of the region’s population, Nigeria has only 15 scientists and engineers engaged in research and development per million persons. This compares with 168 in Brazil, 459 in China, 158 in India, and 4, 103 in the United States...In 1995, Nigeria’s scientific publication was only 711, that of South Africa was 3, 413, India’s was 14, 883, and Brazil’s was 5, 440.

The twin pre-occupation of teaching and research is central to the existence of any university. If Nigeria is failing in research, there is no indication that we are doing well in teaching as well. Many employers as well as government have lamented the poor quality of graduates of Nigerian higher institutions. The same World Bank report said majority of employers believe that “university graduates are poorly trained and unproductive on the job...and the shortcomings are particularly severe in oral and written communication, and in applied technical skills.”

The issue of deficiency in both oral and written communication as reported here is quite significant. These are skills that should be cumulatively acquired over the years and from the lower levels of education. However, once a child misses an opportunity to acquire a strong literacy skill early in life, this can hardly be compensated for at the higher level. Therefore, the problem of quality of higher education is largely resident at the lower education level. Our experience in kwara State confirms this.

Last year, we put about 20, 000 teachers through an assessment test based on a Primary 4 literacy and numeracy curriculum. Out of these, only 75 could meet the minimum competency threshold set at 80%. And quite astonishingly, a significant number of those who scored zero in the test hold university degrees. This brings us to the chicken and egg conundrum: if you do not improve quality at the primary level, you cannot produce quality graduates at the higher level; and if you do not improve quality at the higher level, you cannot have good teachers to teach at the primary and secondary level, thereby undermining children’s opportunity to acquire the necessary early skills. The situation we are in this country now, in fact, appears to be a vicious cycle!

In addition to the problem of general poor quality of higher education, there is also the key issue of relevance. Just like someone said, our supply of graduates is “market blind.” There is little or no correlation between the courses that we train graduates on and the kind of skills that the market needs. It was reported that between 1991-1999, even though the labour market demanded for professional skills in engineering, business administration, health services, accounting and marketing, 49% of graduates produced in Nigeria for that period were on Arts, Education, Law and Social Sciences. Therefore, as a result of this mismatch both in quantity and quality, only an estimated 10% of all graduates produced by the education system is employed annually.

A few year ago, it was reported that in 2004, 950, 000 engineers graduated from China and India, while only 70, 000 graduated from the United States. This sent instant panic around the policy corridors in Washington. But it was quickly explained that majority of the engineers produced in the two countries were actually car mechanics and repairmen. Perhaps, these are the kind of engineers that we need at this level of our development because it is largely for this level of skills that the world is taking note of India and China. The key challenge here therefore is to devise strategies that would match the supply of our higher education in terms of its content, with the demand of our market.  

However, there is yet a fundamental problem which is so central to the problem of declining quality in higher education in Nigeria. This is the issue of funding. Since 1999 especially, various ideas have been canvassed to address this challenge that seems to be central to most other problems confronting higher education in Nigeria. It was estimated that in 2002, $260million was spent in running the Federal University System.

 In 2000, Government announced an increase in recurrent spending per student to $900. For similar expenditure head, United States spends $9,629 per student; United Kingdom at $ 8, 502, Japan at $4, 830, and Germany spends $11, 000. Among the BRIC States, India stands at $400, while China, Russia, and Brazil spend $2, 728; $ 1, 024, and $3, 986. Malaysia spends $11, 790 per student.

It is important to note that one of the BRIC States, India spends less than half of what Nigeria spends. This has important implications for other governance issues around education spending. Despite Nigeria’s relative good standing in higher education funding, how then can we explain the dwindling research capacities, abysmal state of teaching and learning materials, and of course in the hundreds of the most brilliant scholars who leave the country annually to seek greener pastures abroad?

When government funding becomes insufficient in the face of dwindling resources, the challenge is to find creative and sustainable ways of funding higher education. We cannot hope to be a world class player if we do not provide world class education, and world class education costs money. NUC has urged universities to generate 10% of their funds internally. Many have simply raised students’ in-take thereby adding to the pressures of over-crowded facilities, while others have created various in-service courses to raise funds.

There are many ways a university can raise funds, but a key source of in-come that we have shied away from at our peril is undergraduate student tuition fees. One puzzling irony of our country is that parents who paid six-figure fees to send children through primary and secondary schools, would suddenly expect to pay nothing to send that child to a university. We must seriously review this. Free education that fails to deliver on expected and useful quality is certainly very costly both to the individual and the society. Real problems of poverty exist; but useful models abound across the world that we can adapt for students’ tuition, which would take account of the rich and the poor students alike. It is a key policy challenge to strike a balance between tuition that must be paid to attain the right level of funding which will restore quality to our institutions, and the kind of tuition that has the potential to price higher education out of the reach of poor children. But the real danger that we face is to continue to pretend at providing free education in the face of public spending that is certainly not catching up with the rising cost of world class education.
 

Rebranding Nigeria

It was reported that in the 19^th century, Americans were hostile towards immigrants, including the Irish, the Italians, and the Jews! However, with the passage of time, aversion gave way to admiration, then to acceptance and then to respect. Like one commentator noted, this change in attitude did not happen overnight, but it was also not brought about by campaign advertising and posters. It happened because the immigrants succeeded in America. And, as he said, “nothing destigmatises like success.”

Re-branding has to do with changing perception; it is about de-stigmatisation; or what is called “image substitution.” The recent efforts to re-brand Nigeria, by seeking to change the way other people see Nigeria; or what they think about Nigerians is not peculiar to Nigeria, a country that is so much in dire need of rebranding. Countries and States the world over spend millions of dollars each year to positively brand themselves and make their countries appear attractive and welcoming, not only to investors and tourists, but also to people who may come in contact with their nationals. In today’s world of global media, image and perception is everything.

However, what is clear is that a country does not brand or ‘re-brand’ by advertising campaigns alone. Real and enduring re-branding can only come but by achievements, by performance, and by deliberate efforts at building a portfolio of assets and accomplishments that will force people to take a second look at you, and judge you, not by the activities of a few miscreants who are in any case, not a preserve of any country, but by the share worth of what you are able to contribute to the world, politically, socially and economically. 

This effort at rebranding therefore must proceed with one critical question: What do we want to be known for? It is true that at the moment we suffer so much image deficit, which is also largely part of the throw-backs of our recent political history. However, countries that are able to boast of positive brand identity today did not achieve this because they do not have their own fraudsters, or criminals or drug-traffickers or cheats. But because they have achieved monumental success in other sectors which has overshadowed the activities of the few misfits, who carry their passports, and have built and told the good stories around their success. They have built a reputation around something; they have been recognised by the world for something.  It is that recognition that pulls down the walls of bias and prejudice and overwhelms the dysfunctional message that a few of their unscrupulous nationals send to the world.

America is known for its technology and for its universities even though American prisons are filled with local criminals and bandits. Germany came out of World War II as a pariah nation, but today it is known for its heavy machines. France is known for wines. Italy is known for its fashion, not the mafias in Sicily. Switzerland is known for watches. Brazil is known for football. United Kingdom is known for financial services. Cuba is known for its cigars. Kenya is known for Safari. Japan is known for electronics. China is known for toys and shirts, and of course, its cuisines that appeal to a universal palate. India is fast becoming the number one medical tourism centre in the world, without forgetting the IT explosion in Bangalore. Philippines is known for labour exportation. Dubai and Singapore have become the world’s two most famous trading centres. The market is therefore the most effective tool of re-branding. It was the market that did it for India, for China, for Brazil and for Turkey. China alone has over $1.5 trillion dollars in its account. With that kind of accounts balance, only few countries would be inclined to deal with China based on their horrible memory of the Tiananmen Square. Goldman Sachs projected that by 2040, the BRIC States and Mexico will have a larger economic output than the G-7 Countries. Nothing can rebrand more powerfully than this.

Therefore, what do we want to be known for? In marketing, this is called the Unique Selling Point (USP). Locating our USP and achieving global reputation on it, will achieve more than a million hours of TV aimed at ‘re-educating’ other people about our country or breaking down ‘prejudices’ about us. Where do we stand in the economic map of the world? What do we have to contribute to the rest of the world, and to the advancement of humankind? These are the critical questions.

We will soon be 50 years as an independent country. Certainly, in these past 49 years, there must be something positive that we have contributed to the world; something we can be identified and respected for. Nigeria has played major roles in the United Nations peace keeping efforts everywhere, and continues to play a leading role in peace keeping in Africa. Nigerian blood has been spilled everywhere to keep millions of people alive. Certainly, this is worth building a reputation around.

There are also other areas that we have strong potentials to create a powerful image. Football is one of them. Since 1985, we have demonstrated that we can achieve global level success and be recognised for our football. Education is another. The monumental accomplishments of our first generation universities in the 60s is one of the major reasons that we believed then that we could catch up with the rest of the world by 1980. Health is yet another. Like I noted earlier, India is emerging as a strong player in this regard. Certainly, we have the material and human resources to be the number one medical services destination in Sub-saharan Africa.

All these and many more represent immense branding opportunities. We can begin now to consciously nurture and develop any of these, and few years down the line, begin to tell the good story to the world about our country through our dominance of these areas.

This brings us to what I consider to be Nigeria’s most strategic competitive advantage: commercial agriculture. And I will illustrate with our experience in Kwara State.

Until recently, Kwara was a back-water State in the middle of nowhere. And it was not uncommon to hear even the indigenes of the State refer to it as a ‘civil service State’ because the civil service was the only source of employment or income for the people. Well, maybe Kwara is still a civil service State, but there is something else we are now known for: commercial agriculture.

Our efforts to re-brand Kwara started 6 years ago with the effort to re-position its economy. By inviting the commercial farmers from Zimbabwe to settle in Nigeria and establish the commercial agriculture project in Shonga, we have carved a niche for the State. People who have not been to our State before know about the Zimbabwean farmers and talk about them. If you are a Kwaran, you are more likely to be asked questions about the commercial agriculture when you go outside the State, even when you are not a farmer; just like a Brazilian is likely to be asked about football even if he has never stepped on a football field.

The commercial agriculture initiative is therefore a successful enterprise at re-branding a State. It has attracted other State Governors to our State. It has attracted several ambassadors and high commissioners to visit kwara State. No visit to our state by any foreign diplomat is complete without a visit to Shonga; a nondescript village that has been placed on the global map by the commercial agriculture project, which currently employs more than 3000 workers, and paying a wage bill higher than that of its host Local Government. The multiplier effect of this on local businesses has been significant because of the improvement in the purchasing power of the locals.  

If you enter Kwara State into any internet search engine, the Shonga initiative is likely to come up more than anything else. Thanks to the project, we now have something with which to describe our State abroad (That State in Nigeria where the displaced farmers from Zimbabwe relocated!). Also you can now find websites advertising cheap travels and tours to Kwara State from Europe and America!

Apart from the economic benefits, there is also the ‘feel good’ aspect to this. A Kwaran now feels more confident and proud to have come from a State with the cleanest capital city in Nigeria; a State that the former British High Commissioner once described as “the centre of innovation,” after visiting Shonga and seeing both the commercial agriculture initiatives and the Community Health Insurance Scheme.  The Community Health Insurance itself is also a direct spin off of the commercial agriculture project. It is the first of such programme in Nigeria. The Dutch Government supported this initiative because of the  commercial agriculture initiative in Shonga. Under this scheme, with N300 an individual in the community can access a broad range of medical services. Our commercial agriculture initiative only represents our abiding conviction that agriculture remains Nigeria’s best competitive advantage and a gateway for achieving global economic recognition. However, if we want agriculture to play this role, we have to take farming beyond the current subsistence level. Profitable agriculture can only be driven at the commercial level.  We have to see it as business and invest heavily in large scale commercial agriculture in its entire broad spectrum. The N200 Billion agriculture credit announced by the Federal Government is a salutary move indeed. However, we must go a step further by ensuring that banks are able to lend to farmers. But it is only when banks lend to the big farmers that they can lend to the small farmers because of the connectedness. It is like the rising wave that carries all boats, small and big alike. If banks lend to a dairy farmer, then he can raise more cows, and therefore require more sorghum or millets. This provides ready markets for the small scale millet farmer who can use this to incentivise the bank to grant him credit.

Apart from funding, another crucial factor that policy actors must take into consideration is the need to devise strategies that will promote productivity. Few years ago, government announced that 5-10 percent of bread flour must have cassava content. So many people jumped up and every farmland became a cassava plantation, with many retired civil servants investing their gratuities on the enterprise. But the bubble went burst. The policy was neither complied with nor enforced. People were sleeping on mountains of cassava, waiting for the promised buyers that never showed up. What followed is better imagined. Therefore, policies like this are very crucial and can yield the desired results if they are carefully planned and implemented. Like it is proposed for cassava, the same goes for milk and rice. Out of Nigeria’s $4billion annual food import bill, $1.2 billion is spent on importing milk, mostly powdered milk; and $1.5 billion on rice. Again, we must make policy decisions that will encourage local production of these items. For milk, the starting point would be to make it mandatory for all the companies importing and repackaging milk in the country to also produce fresh milk locally. This will not only boost that sector, but will also over the years, wean our people off the powdered milk, which as we know have little or no nutritional values. Recently, we re-opened the famous Nigerian Paper Mill, in Jebba, which had been abandoned for many years, but now taken over by an Indian company. But I was reliably informed that at the moment, the customs duty on imported finished paper, which runs into about 200, 000 tonnes annually is much less than the duty on the scrap paper that is the raw materials for local production. If we continue like this, we would only continue to help other economies to grow, while we continue to wallow in the backwaters. Some of these policy actions only require us to shed some of the bureaucracy that has profited some people over the years, but has impoverished the country.

There are some products that we have no business importing: cement, crude oil, steel, food, and paper. Banning the importation of any of these products may cause some discomfort but this would be temporary. One of arguments is that prices of these items would go up the moment local substitution is made for import. However, experience has shown that price would go up only at the initial stage until the volume of local production catches up with it. The more that is produced and consumed locally, the higher the production and this will ultimately bring down the price.

A “Doing Business Ranking” for 2007 and 2008, which ranks countries based on the ease of doing business, compared 181 countries. Nigeria ranked 118^th on ‘Ease of Doing Business’ ranking; 91st on ‘Starting a Business’ ranking; 84^th on ‘Getting Credit’ Ranking; and 53^rd on ‘Protecting Investor’ ranking. This calls for a comprehensive review of our various regulatory regimes, bringing them in line with current global practices in a way that would strategically position us for the competition.

I have said earlier that government must provide efficient physical infrastructure on which the private sector can hope to operate profitably. One of the major disincentives for business in our country is the challenge of power generation. President Umaru yar’Adua’s plan to deliver 6000 megawatts of electricity by the end of this year. This alone will have such a dramatic impact on business in a way never seen before. Our experience in Kwara State has proven this. Recently, we were able to launch a 330/132 and six 33 KVA capacity transformers at a sub-station in the State. This has had an instant impact on the economy as many companies and businesses have reported a reduction of up to 80% in their expenditure on diesel. And we project that this alone can lead to a saving of up to N6 billion in the first year. 

The Achilles Heel

Politics is the Achilles heels of many developing countries and emerging democracies like ours. The nature of politics is central to any economic and development plans. Many years of economic gains can be undermined by a few weeks of mindless politics. This is so crucial that many have argued that unless we get our politics right, we may achieve little or no economic progress at all in the years ahead.

Therefore, our plans to re-position as one of the leading 20 economies in the world within the next decade must also be built on our desire to play our politics by the globally acceptable standards. Our electoral reform must transcend debates about INEC. Afterall, we cannot blame the referee if the players keep lunging dangerously at the opponent or tackling from behind in the course of the match.

The fundamental consideration here is how to truly empower the people, by ensuring that their votes count. The only way we can ensure performance by government is when that government knows that it is in power solely at the pleasure of the people, and once it fails to perform, the people have the power to withdraw the mandate they have given. If there are any other ways the government can keep itself in power apart from through the people, then that government cannot be fully accountable. And the issue of accountability is also a call to play by the rules.

In addition to achieving economic progress, one crucial way to re-brand our country is also to present ourselves to the world, through our politics and other spheres of our lives that we are willing and able to play by the globally acceptable norms, whether in politics, business, sports, religion, or culture. The onus of re-branding Nigeria therefore, lies on Nigerians to represent Nigeria well within Nigeria and outside Nigeria.Another important point that we must bear in mind, is that we cannot get others to think positively about us unless we begin to think positively, talk positively, and behave positively about ourselves. Therefore, the issue of rebranding must also involve an increasing consciousness to project the positive stories about ourselves to the world. No matter how bad we think we are, there certainly must be some things that we are doing right, which is worthy of showcasing to the world. But we are not doing enough of this. The late Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello said if you do not blow your trumpets, you should not expect anyone to blow them for you because they are busy blowing their own. We must learn to blow our own trumpets. If all that we do is to run down our leaders and our country; and seek to diminish people who should stand as our icons of hope, our ambassadors of dreams, then we cannot expect others to tell the good story about us or have a positive impression about our country.

Another important issue is the Niger-Delta. This is becoming an albatross, unless we do something urgently to address it. Our addressing the Niger Delta, should go beyond disarming the militants and must be such that intensifies our commitment to improve the quality of lives of the people by providing the necessary infrastructures for development in the area. As long as we fail to address the Niger Delta issue conclusively and constructively, we would continue to have it as a festering sore that would overshadow much of our efforts to rebrand our country. 

Conclusion

I have argued in this paper for Nigeria to attain its vision of becoming one of the leading 20 economies of the world by the year 2020, we must begin now to develop a broad portfolio of assets that will enable us take advantage of emerging opportunities in the global economic arena. I also argued that the most important investment that Nigeria needs to make in the global knowledge economy is in the development of its ‘human infrastructure’ making the right policy decisions that will improve and realign our higher education both in terms of quality and relevance.

Similarly, I argued that the effort to re-brand Nigeria could not be more imperative. However, this should be understood in the context of the responsibilities that we have to improve our competitiveness and carve a niche for our country, especially in the global economic arena and project a positive image about our country to the world.

I concluded by noting that the fulcrum of economic and social development agenda should be for us to embrace the ‘new politics’ that will not only be prepared to play by the rules, but also willing to truly empower the people, by returning democracy in our country to its fundamental principle, as the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

REFERENCES

Friedman  T., (2006). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Sachs J., (2008). Commonwealth Economics for a Crowded Planet, London, Allen Lane.

Saint W., et al. (2003). Higher Education in Nigeria: A Status Report, in Higher Education Policy, Washington, The World Bank.

Zakaria F., (2008). The Post-American World, New York, W.W. Norton & Company.